CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER POONA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTROVERSY is centred on the question of valuation of the lands under acquisition. The trial Court had correctly valued the lands and the High Court had erroneously revised the valuation downwards - complains the original owner of the land who is the appellant in these two allied appeals [By Certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as it existed at the material time.].

(2.) THE lands in question situated in a locality known as 'Tigris Camp' within the city limits of Poona in Maharashtra, admeasuring 15 acres and 17 Gunthas, comprised in Survey Nos. 85 and 86, were placed under acquisition pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on 8/03/1956. THE acquisition was a part of the total acquisition of 101 acres 33 Gunthas made for a public purpose viz. for construction of the Headquarters, Poona Rural Police Charge. THE appellant was not satisfied with the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of his parcel of 15 Acres 7 Gunthas and applied for a reference being made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Two references were made to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the market value of the lands for the purpose of awarding compensation to the appellants. THE Trial Court determined the market value of 2 1/4 acres forming part of Survey Nos. 85 and 86 at Rs. 15,100.00 per acre. Market value in respect of the remaining 13 acres and 7 Gunthas was determined at Rs. 8692.00 per acre. THE present dispute is confined to valuation of 13 Acres 7 Gunthas forming part of Survey No. 85. THE High Court has reduced the total compensation payable in respect of the land in question from Rs. 1,14,517.00, computed at Rs. 8692.00 per acre to Rs. 63,846.00 (which works out at Rs. 4845.87 per acre) thereby reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant by Rs. 50,554.00 in respect of this parcel of land.

(3.) THE problem which has surfaced in the present appeals needs to be recapitulated. THE question is whether in scaling down the total compensation payable to the appellant from Rs. 1,14,517 to Rs. 63,846, the High Court has violated any principle of valuation or adopted any faulty methodology.